|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2006 10:54 pm
Byaggha Akanishi Makoto Did I ever mention that I absolutely love you, in an all-encompassing dharmic sense of the word? heart It's the No Sex in the Champaign Room reference, isn't it? biggrin heart Quote: And - for the lay practitioner - love is love. Period. Remember, gender is just another delusion of existence - we were all at some point male and female, and our current flesh means nothing other than whether or not our embryos were exposed to a certain protein at a certain point in gestation. Nothing more. Agreed. You finished the thought that I had going in my head at work tonight after posting here the first time, too - It's nice to have someone capable of that. Thanks Makoto. biggrin interesting^^ not even 2 hours in this guild and i have learned a lot^^ but since you guys already have sad i don't really have to^^ love is love and it had no boundaries
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2006 1:40 pm
Byaggha The sad part is, I think it's a warped view of the Vinaya there - I always took the stance on "no homosexual monks" as part of the monk code of general sexuality - it's just one more thing blocked in the long list of things monks can't have sex with. Technically you can't be heterosexual and be a monk either - it was blocked as well. There will be absolutely no sex in the champaign meditation room. And I think that's all that was originally intended. People just like reading more into it. And just because someone's got an "unfavorable birth" (yay, I'm in one too, being a chick and everything) doesn't mean they're supposed to be abused for it - it's hard enough trying to live the dharma with the flack and problems we already get, the other followers should be supportive and show kindness, this should not be an excuse to further segrigate people. Period. I agree with you on your stance on the Vinaya. People definitely like to read into things and make it say whatever they want (look at most modern fundamental religious groups and their respective Holy scriptures). Though homosexual activity was to be excluded from monastic life it's kind of a "DUH" moment considering all sexual activity was to be excluded as well. It makes sense that it shouldn't matter what their sexual orientation was in meditation room, because regardless, they weren't/aren't to act upon it (being celibate and all 3nodding ) And about the "unfavorable birth" thing, I agree it's not fair to say they deserve whatever society throws at them. It's supposed to be about compassion and loving-kindness, not judgement and negative treatment based on such judgement stare .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Akanishi Makoto Vice Captain
|
Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2006 10:11 pm
chaddo And about the "unfavorable birth" thing, I agree it's not fair to say they deserve whatever society throws at them. It's supposed to be about compassion and loving-kindness, not judgement and negative treatment based on such judgement stare . That's why Buddhism doesn't include the caste system, although the spill over is "unfavorable birth". Doesn't mean you can't be enlightened, just makes it a bit more difficult. Look at it this way: You've heard the Dharma. That's more important than your gender or sexual orientation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2006 9:58 am
Akanishi Makoto chaddo And about the "unfavorable birth" thing, I agree it's not fair to say they deserve whatever society throws at them. It's supposed to be about compassion and loving-kindness, not judgement and negative treatment based on such judgement stare . That's why Buddhism doesn't include the caste system, although the spill over is "unfavorable birth". Doesn't mean you can't be enlightened, just makes it a bit more difficult. Look at it this way: You've heard the Dharma. That's more important than your gender or sexual orientation. That's just it, I'm not really concerned at all about my gender or orientation. If other people are, then fine, but I've never let it get to me. My comment was more in reply to what Byaggha said rather than a personal reflection of any sort. I don't see how it's any more difficult to reach enlightment for a homosexual than it is for a heterosexual. I guess "unfavorable birth" is just something I simply don't agree with in that respect. If you're speaking in terms of just how other people treat you, regardless of your orientation you can still be ostrasized for any number of other things making it more difficult to develop loving-kindness and stay on the path.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2006 11:12 am
chaddo That's just it, I'm not really concerned at all about my gender or orientation. If other people are, then fine, but I've never let it get to me. My comment was more in reply to what Byaggha said rather than a personal reflection of any sort. I don't see how it's any more difficult to reach enlightment for a homosexual than it is for a heterosexual. I guess "unfavorable birth" is just something I simply don't agree with in that respect. If you're speaking in terms of just how other people treat you, regardless of your orientation you can still be ostrasized for any number of other things making it more difficult to develop loving-kindness and stay on the path. It's not my feeling, personally, I'm just repeating what the stuff I've read has said - female and homosexual are apparantly both harder births, simply because we are supposedly more attached to life than men are. For many women, this is an understandable idea - after all, we want a family, we want to protect children of our own, we want a household. That's plenty of craving right there, plenty to tie us to the cycle. Granted, not every woman feels this way, which is why it's considered more difficult and not entirely impossible. As for homosexuals, I'm not sure what the rationale is. I'd have to read more about it, but the basis that I got for assuming it was a lesser birth was an attachment to pleasure, and for some a longing similar to that of women - family, house, normal life. Add this to societal lack of understanding, and it can get pretty scary. Granted, I do see the point - it sounds weird for a faith that claims all things get loving kindness towards them to say anyone's got it easier - I think we're all on pretty equal footing here, after hearing the Dharma. It's gonna be hard for any one of us - man, woman, homosexual or heterosexual. Period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 7:41 am
chaddo That's just it, I'm not really concerned at all about my gender or orientation. If other people are, then fine, but I've never let it get to me. My comment was more in reply to what Byaggha said rather than a personal reflection of any sort. I don't see how it's any more difficult to reach enlightment for a homosexual than it is for a heterosexual. I guess "unfavorable birth" is just something I simply don't agree with in that respect. If you're speaking in terms of just how other people treat you, regardless of your orientation you can still be ostrasized for any number of other things making it more difficult to develop loving-kindness and stay on the path. I'm going to say that, in the West, Homosexuality is a non-normative social behavior, and as such, it's generally identified with. Same as Feminine traits (I'm honestly not making this up to be Homophobic or Mysogenistic, it's what I was taught in Sociology). Because these traits are identified with, they become attachments. I'm not saying that masculinity is immune to this, much the contrary. How many men do you know that are absolutely enamoured with themselves or socially acceptable "male" traits (such as sports, cars, women, etc.) So, to do a complete 180, I have no idea why being gay or female would actually be a "lesser birth", other than a projected societal stance on those traits and those that have them. I'm probably talking out of my a** right now and making no sense. Enjoy the monkey mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Akanishi Makoto Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 10:05 pm
Akanishi Makoto So, to do a complete 180, I have no idea why being gay or female would actually be a "lesser birth", other than a projected societal stance on those traits and those that have them. Which is exactly what makes me hesitant to give any accountability to such ideas of lesser births... because do we actually know this is truly original to Buddhist thought, or is it just something that was created in responce to "projected societal stances" on homosexuals and women? In my opinion we can't truly know, (unless someone has a time machine handy? biggrin ). To me, "heterosexual" seems just as much a title as "homosexual," and in the end, either is an attachment that should be dealt with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 12:01 pm
Hermaphrodites and eunuchs aren't allowed to be ordained? confused That makes me sad, why should they be denied the chance to obtain enlightenment?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
